Esskey Jay Ispaat vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, … on 31 August, 2001

Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal – Calcutta
Esskey Jay Ispaat vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, … on 31 August, 2001


Archana Wadhwa

1. After dispensing with the condition of predeposit of duty amount, I take up the appeals itself with the consent of both the sides.

2. A very short issue is involved in the present appeals. The appellants have been denied the benefit of modvat credit availed by them on the basis of dealer’s invoices issued on 9.8.94 on the ground that they were registered subsequently on 23.8.94 with registration No. 99/dealer/HRD/94-95. The said registration number has been shown on the invoices issued on 9.8.94. Accordingly, the proceedings were initiated against the appellants proposing denial of modvat credit. The Assistant Commissioner adjudicated the case and after taking into account the fact that the dealer could get himself registered upon December 1994, dropped the proceedings. The department reviewed the above orders of the Assistant Commissioner. The Commissioner (Appeals) took into consideration the dealers’ contention that the Central Excise registration no were verbally communicated to them and as such the same was written on the invoices though the actual registration certificate was issued subsequently on 23.8.94. Accordingly, he has observed that the matter needs to be verified but in the operative portion, he held that the appeals are allowed.

3. I have heard Shri Radha Raman, ld. Advocate appearing for the appellants and Shri A.K. Chattopadhyay, ld.JDR.

4. The whole case of the Revenue is that the invoice issued on 9.8.94 cannot reflect the dealer’s registration number issued on 23.8.94. As such, the invoice is back dated and may not cover the inputs in question. I find that where may be possibility of registration number having been intimated to the dealer verbally by their Central Excise officers. As such, it is more important to find out as to whether the invoice in question covers the inputs received by the dealer from M/s TISCO and further sold to the appellants. As such I remand the matter to the Assistant Commissioner for making necessary verification and to decide the availability of modvat credit based upon the result of such verification. Both the appeals are allowed by way of remand.

Dictated and pronounced in the open Court.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *